Lionel: We can interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise and the conclusion is traditional and orthodox. Pope Francis wrongly interpreted Vatican Council II with the Irrational Premise to produce a liberal conclusion and the result was Traditionis Custode etc.
Catholics are obliged to interpret Vatican Council II only rationally.
Similarly on Faith, Synod and Human Development Vatican Council II has to be interpreted with only the Rational Premise.
We are not obligated to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally as did Pope Paul VI, Rahner, Ratzinger and Balthazar. We have a rational and honest choice and it supports the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Roman Missal at the Latin Mass.
With the Rational Premise, used in the interpretation, Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric at every liturgy and rite.
There cannot be reforms with the use of the Irrational Premise and Inference to interpret Vatican Council II.
This is deception.
Pope Paul VI interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally and so dishonestly, now that we know that there is a rational and traditional choice. So the liturgical books are not ecclesiocentric like the Roman Missal but only Christocentric. This is a limitation. The lex orandi over the centuries was ecclesiocentric and Christocentric. So the New Missal has a shortcoming. It does not affirm the traditional faith, since the False Premise was used in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office and then it was repeated at Vatican Council II (1965).
There cannot be a reform in the name of Vatican Council II when what is implicit is confused as being explicit and then it is concluded wrongly that Vatican Council II, is a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Tradition.
There cannot be a development with the use of an Irrational Premise to produce a liberal and non traditional conclusion. This is not development. It is dishonesty
Pope Pius VI interpreted the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms with the common irrational premise, as is being done by Pope Leo XIV
With the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is rejected; there is a new understanding of the Nicene Creed. The original interpretation of the Athanasius Creed has been changed at every rite and liturgy.
The blue orthodox passages in Vatican Council II are not contradicted by the red passages which refer to hypothetical and invisible cases in 1965-2025. So the blue passages are in harmony with Tradition. They are aligned with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus of the Council of Florence 1442 and the rest of Tradition. Vatican Council II is orthodox and ecclesiocentric like the Roman Missal at the Latin Mass.
The interpretation of Vatican Council II with a False Premise is not part of Tradition. Over the centuries, tradition, interpreted the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms with only the Rational Premise.
The liturgy cannot be reformed with a New Theology based upon an irrational premise, inference and non traditional conclusion. It cannot be reformed with a New Philosophy which projects what is invisible as being visible. This is an empirical mistake. It is an objective mistake. It is not Catholic philosophy.
There cannot be a new theology by interpreting Vatican Council II dishonestly in public. This is a scandal. People now know about it. They know that they have a choice. They can interpret the Council rationally and the conclusion is traditional It is the end of liberalism and alleged ‘reforms’.
The formation at the Liturgical Department at the University of St.Anselm in Rome is being done with the dishonest interpretation of Vatican Council II and Cardinal Roche is a part of this cover up.
There is nothing in Sacroscnatum Concilium to contradict Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation, while LG 8, 14, 16 etc are not explicit exceptions for AG 7 and the rest of Tradition. This is not being affirmed by Cardinal Roche and this is heresy and schism.
The popes from Paul VI to Leo have interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally. So the New Missal of 1962 does not have the ecclesiocentric theology of the Roman Missal. The Roman Missal is aligned with Vatican Council II interpreted rationally and not the New Missal which does not say outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.
The Council interpreted irrationally and so dishonestly is not apostolic or magisterial. It is schism with the pre-1949 Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The Council has to be interpreted rationally and this is the only moral option we have. The Council is then apostolic and magisterial and not a rupture with Tradition. Pope Francis’ interpretation of Vatican Council II was schismatic and not apostolic. He had a traditional choice but did not want to take it.- Lionel Andrades

14.01.2026
VATICAN COUNCIL II HAS A REALITY OF ITS OWN ON ECUMENISM, DIALOGUE, COLLEGIALITY, CHRIST THE KING, ECCLESIOCENTRIC MISSION ETC : POPE LEO, FISCHELLA AND SPADARO MUST CHOOSE THE RATIONAL PREMISE
VATICAN COUNCIL II HAS A REALITY OF ITS OWN ON …

They better never make me pope. They’d be really sad, old men on the streets as beggars in woolen robes. Or they’d leave the priesthood and marry their male concubines.

Satan “always” attacks what belongs to God.

A heretic.